IAAAP FAC 2.0 Sources Sought Q and A Final V1.pdf

Number Question Government Answer

1 Will this be a service or construction contract? Construction 2 Will the Davis Bacon Act or Service Contract Act requirements apply to this contract? Davis Bacon Act

Will FAR Clause 52.222-54 Employment Eligibility Verification be included in the final contract? Yes

Will the Government be providing all ammunition components required for line commissioning as

GFM?

Yes

5 Will the Government grant a 60-day extension to the response date? No

Who will be the project Owner's Representative/ Project Manager for the Government? What kind of staff will that entity have? Will they be the decision maker?

PL JS is the program/project manager for this effort. ACC RI will retain contract authority. At this time PL JS and ACC RI will be the entry point for all actions. The PL JS and ACC team will incorporate other USG entities as needed. The prime is ultimately responsible for achieving contract requirements.

Process Performance Guarantee & Ownership: Is the government looking for a main OEM/GC/EPC to OWN this risk (especially for O&M Equipment) after Performance Acceptance Testing upon completion of project?

This will be finalized prior to definitization and agreed upon by both design/build firm and the operating contractor. USG is looking for best industry practices on risk ownership as it pertains to production, equipment, and facility performance prior to and after the transition.

Is AO/ D&Z one of the competitors on this opportunity? And what is the USG's position on utilizing M&H considering their multi-year institutional knowlege of this project and site (although a Stop Work was issued April 2024)?

The requirements as described in the SSN (W519TC-25-R-0032) are considered a new effort by the USG. The SSN is open to all potential offerors registered in SAM.gov with cage codes. All previous efforts were determined to be unaffordable or un-executable and not aligned to the emerging requirements. All documents and prep work associated with previous designs that are not design solutions will be provided to potential offerors as part of this new requirement upon request so long as requestors are registered in JCP and signed an NDA. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

We would be interested in a tour of line 3A here as well as tour of the Kansas facility that is currently under construction, is that possible in the next 1 -2 weeks

Access to IAAAP and tours of existing lines will not be provided by the USG at this time but an offeror may coordinate directly with the operating contractor (AO).

With Reference to Technical Data Package "TDB" & Submission Instructions (Page 7 of 9 attachment 1 Source sought).

In the event we intend to submit with a JV Partner, should the new entity (JV entity) be registered on SAM prior to submitting the proposal ?

A new cage code will likely be required to register as a JV. The recommendation is to have 1 entity/prime register/respond to the SSN with their already assigned cage code then in parallel work to gain a new cage for the JV. The response can be submitted under the cage previously submitted then upon a potential award be moved to the JV cage code. If a partner is not registered in SAM.GOV those entities cannot receive USG documents provided as part of this effort.

Does experience with complex, industrial projects qualify for "demonstrated capbilities" as referenced on Page 5, Paragraph 1 of the RFP?

Yes, experience with large complex industrial design/builds help in qualifying a response. Experience with munitions (LAP) manufacturing improves a potential offerors response. We recognize and encourage all offerors to form partnerships to better strengthen your response.

We would like to understand prior endeavor & work completed that USG has already paid for. Previous design solutions were determined unaffordable and un-executable and subsequently canceled. This is a new requirement developed with a sense of urgency to address 1242/1244 authorities. Documents involved in previous efforts minus design solutions will be made available, see SSN amendment #3. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

What is the FUND status/availability ? What is the Budget for this project? The response should be designed to technical specs as articulated in the SSN. There is an appropriation for this project with no expected future appropriations planned or expected. The USG team will be considering tradeoffs that maximize best value to the USG and what is in the best interest to IAAAP as a whole.

Confirm flow of commitments from USG:

1. Sources sought and commitment of funds to Contractor?

2. Definitization period to confirm price (30 days inadequate, 4-6 mo's)

3. UCA process

Per the DFAR UCA Definitization within 180 days of a qualified proposal, or the date on which the amount of funds obligated under the contract action is equal to more than 50% of the not to exceed, of receipt of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4, proposal shall be in the format found at FAR 15.408 Table 15-2. UCA process - after receipt of qualifying cost proposal, proposal goes through an analysis to establish the Government price position. Once position is established, negotiations occur. Once negotiations are finalized ACC-RI prepares the modification to definitize the award. We anticipate months to get to a qualified proposal but will be discussed post award.

https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-217.74-undefinitized-contract-actions

RISK for Sources Sought and "NTE" -We want to confirm if source sought NTE is initial Budget to to the scope, clarifications and schedule, this budget will be confirmed , updated during the definitization phase

- USG Define Budget, Contractor use TVD and Validation to establish FFP (definitize over 4-6 mo's)

No further appropriations for this efforts is expected or planned. The contract will be UCA (FFP NTE).

https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-217.74-undefinitized-contract-actions

16 What if ONLY ONE qualified proposal submitted? Re-bidding or Direct negotiation? USG anticipates receiving sufficient number of responses.

Does the Government expect there to be financial penalties for performance (i.e. liquidated damages, etc.)?

Not at this time but is subject to change prior to definitization.

Please Clarify if there is any Bond Requirement? Yes, performance and payment bonds are required for any construction project over $150k.

Please provide the Initial RFP Schedule showing the award date and time for UCA stage? Tentative award date is August 15, 2025. See tentative schedule presented during industry day. Per the FAR UCA Definitization within 180 days of receipt of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4, proposal shall be in the format found at FAR 15.408 Table 15-2. UCA process - after receipt of qualifying cost proposal, proposal goes through an analysis to establish the Government price position. Once position is established, negotiations occur. Once negotiations are finalized ACC-RI prepares the modification to definitize the award. ACC RI maintains an internal objective of definitization of no more than 150 days but is subject to change. The USG anticipates months post award to get to a qualified proposal and will be discussed immediately post award.

https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-217.74-undefinitized-contract-actions

What planning/design has been done on the LAP Facility Program? Previous design solutions were determined unaffordable and un-executable and subsequently canceled. This is a new requirement developed with a sense of urgency to address 1242/1244 authorities. Documents involved in previous efforts minus design solutions will be made available, see SSN amendment #3. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

During the Industry Day, it was shared NEPA was performed on both proposed sites. However, it is unclear how old these are and if an update is necessary. Can we get a copy of the NEPA documents and findings.

Iowa NPDES Permit #: 2900900 Date of Issuance: February 1, 2020 Date of Expiration: January 31, 2025 Date of this Amendment: January 1, 2023 EPA Number: IA0022144

Currently, we anticipate approx. = 900KGal buffer capacity for an equalization basin at the sewage Treatment facility with the future expansion designed into the built plan for future retention time and capacity if needed.

The new facility should consider all treatment technologies that compliment a biological treatment system (Biological treatment/SBR system) at the planned sewage treatment plant, currently under construction. Yes, the tentative site has been approved from the NEPA compliance perspective.

The 2 documents that cover the approvals of both sites are as follows:

• “Supplement Environmental Assessment for the Future Artillery Complex, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA” dated April 2023. Prepared by bhate.

• EA for Implementation of Master Planning Actions at IAAAP, dated June 2020. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District Contract No.: W91278-16-D-0021; Task Order No.: W9127819F0276

During the Industry Day, it was shared Geotechnical Investigations were performed on one or both proposed sites? However, to what extent? And can we get a copy of the geotechnical reports?

Yes , Geotech report is available upon request see SSN amendment #3. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Can we get the documentation that the sites are considered either “brown field” or “green field” sites?

If a brown field, has site characterization and/or remediation been completed or will assessment/cleanup be part of the scope?

The intended site (site 2 west of yard E) is a green field. The intended site is the field west of yard E.

Have CR and NR studies been performed? If so, can we get a copy of these studies? See available documents. Amendment #3 to SSN. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

25 Is there an IAAP Master Plan that incorporates the LAP? If so, can we get a copy? Any documents that can be made available to contractors can be made available.

Has a concept design been performed? If so, can we get a copy? Previous design solutions were determined unaffordable and un-executable and subsequently canceled. This is a new requirement developed with a sense of urgency to address 1242/1244 authorities. Documents involved in previous efforts minus design solutions will be made available, see SSN amendment #3. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Maps showing existing Blast Arcs, Utilities, site constraints, etc. were shown during the Industry Day.

Can we get a copy of those maps and any others that would benefit the gov’t in competition and pricing?

Please see SSN amendment #3. Documents will be made available upon request minuns those documents that involve previous design solutions. One of the documents available is the most recent ARC map. For the purposes of the SSN response, assume all utilities are available on site (site #2 west of yard E), assume zero costs at this time and expect adjustments prior to definitizaiton once complete scope around utilities is better defined. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

What environmental operating permits are anticipated? Please provide a copy of every site environmental permit that would need to be taken into consideration in putting the LAP into production.

All documents that can be made available will be provided upon request.

Do we need to consider the impact to other site environmental permits? If so, what specific permits will be impacted?

Tentatively, the USG will ask the design build firm to coordinate all new permitting requirements through the current operating contractor. This is subject to change post award prior to definitization.

Do both proposed sites have sufficient supportive infrastructure at the LAP boundary? Industry Partners should only be reviewing "site 2" west of Yard E. (site 2 on the tour as articulated in the SSN). Assume all utilities minus compressed air and package boilers are available on site. Rail is near site 2 (proposed site), and road infrastructure is robust.

Both proposed sites are within the boundary of IAAAP. However, what additional site access control is desired for the LAP manufacturing campus (i.e. fencing, ACP, secondary site access control, etc.)

The new LAP line will require its own enclosure fence and access control within IAAAP. Parking for employees post commission/transition will be outside of the access control point.

Will the GOCO – “American Ordinance” and their parent firm “Day Zimmerman” be excluded from participating in this SSN due to its inside knowledge gained from operating IAAAP and performing initial planning/concept studies?

The requirements as described in the SSN (W519TC-25-R-0032) are considered a new effort based on latest overseas contingencies and new operating environment. The SSN is open to all potential offerors registered in SAM.gov with cage codes. All previous efforts were determined to be unaffordable or un-executable and out of scope with new operating environment. All documents and prep work associated with previous designs that are not design solutions will be provided to potential offerors as part of this new requirement. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

What is the available funding for this project? There is an appropriation for this project with no expected future appropriations planned or expected.

The USG team will be considering tradeoffs that maximize best value to the USG and that is in the best interest of the entire IAAAP installation.

34 Will this project be subject to the CR and not be allowed to start until this is lifted? No impact.

Scope and Expectations: What are the critical performance objectives and key deliverables? A facility complex design that achieves the requirements of the 155mm M795 TDP inclusive of requirements listed in the SSN, plus (1) valid and realistic schedule, (2) cost and pricing. Specific critical performance objectives and key deliverables will be defined during contract discussions.

Definitization Timeline: What is the target timeframe for definitizing the contract? Per the FAR UCA Definitization within 180 days of receipt of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4, proposal shall be in the format found at FAR 15.408 Table 15-2. UCA process - after receipt of qualifying cost proposal, proposal goes through an analysis to establish the Government price position. Once position is established, negotiations occur. Once negotiations are finalized ACC-RI prepares the modification to definitize the award. ACC RI maintains an internal objective of definitization of no more than 150 days but is subject to change. The USG anticipates months to get to a qualified proposal and will be discussed post award. https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart- 217.74-undefinitized-contract-actions

What specific data, cost details, or proposals are required for definitization? Qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4. Certified Cost or pricing data should be in the format found at FAR 15.408 Table 15-2

Funding and Cost Controls: What funding limitations or incremental funding strategies should we anticipate?

Funding will be provided in accordance with UCA DFAR 217.74 regulations: subject to change depending on waiver approvals if in the best interest of the USG and the overall effort of expediting a new LAP line at IAAAP.

Risk Sharing: How will cost, schedule, and scope risks be allocated between ACC and our team? As a FFP risk is owned by the contractor.

40 What cost elements will be considered allowable and subject to negotiation? Cost elements allowed per the FAR will be considered and are subject to negotiation.

Approval and Decision Process: What are the approval steps and key stakeholders involved in definitization?

Submission of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4 and 15.408 Table 15-2. Proposal then goes through a cost analysis and the government develops its negotiation position. Once the final price is negotiated, ACC begins the process of definitizing the award.

In order to digest the responses to these and other industry questions, as well as obtain and review the materials requested, we request the submission date be extended an additional 3 weeks from receipt of this information. Given the importance of this project, that time will help all bidders to provide the government more precise and comprehensive submissions.

The decision to extend the sources sought notice and subsequent response due date will be in the best interest of the USG.

Does the scope of this effort include the assembly of the M1128 base bleed and XM1113 rocket motor?

Baseline is 795 TNT, the USG would like to understand risk to cost and schedule to LAP other 155 type rounds. The capability to produce 1128 and 1113 would be desirable but will be evaluated through trade off analysis.

The Sources Sought states “The Government's intent is to award the proposed contract(s) based on the capabilities demonstrated in response to this sources sought notice”. Can the USG award elements of this proposal to various contractors? For example, the building to one contractor and the production line to another?

The USG will award to a prime and/or JV. Teaming arrangements are encouraged. At this time the USG does not plan to piecemeal this effort.

Based on the current pending availability of critically needed information, will the Government grant a 30 day extension in order to allow industry to submit a more thorough response, which will allow the Government to have a clearer view of each solution and save cost and time on the overall acquisition process?

The decision to extend the sources sought notice and subsequent response due date will be in the best interest of the USG.

How much excess steam capacity is there at the Iowa site? How far is the nearest high pressure steam line from the 240 acre site? What pressure is the steam supplied at this location? What would be the maximum flowrate available for supply to the site?

Steam production such as package boilers in support of the new LAP line will be required as part of any response design solution. Compressed air will also be required if part of your design. You can assume all other utilities will be available on site. As of today natural gas availability is sufficient for this effort.

In the event that there is not sufficient steam capacity for the process what is the capacity of the natural gas main and pressure? How far is the nearest main gas line that would be tapped for this site?

Steam production in support of the new LAP line will likely be required as part of any response design solution. You can assume all other utilities will be sufficient and available on site. As of today natural gas availability is sufficient for this effort. COmpressed air will also be required if part of your design.

How far is the waste water facility from the site? What is the current capacity of this site to treat water from the new site? What are the maximum permissible levels of contaminants such as DNAN, NTO, TNT etc.?

Currently, we anticipate approx. = 900KGal buffer capacity for an equalization basin at the sewage Treatment facility with the future expansion designed into the built plan for future retention time and capacity if needed.

The new facility should consider all treatment technologies that compliment a biological treatment system (Biological treatment/SBR system) at the planned sewage treatment plant, currently under construction.

How far is the nearest high tension line? What is the spare capacity in MVA and the voltage at this point?

Industry partners can assume all utilities will be provided on site minus compressed gas and steam via package boilers.

In order to optimally position the buildings we will need detailed maps. These maps should include information on adjacent facilities, their explosive limits and their occupancy. This will be necessary to determine whether IBD or PTRD is required for quantity distance considerations according to DoD

4145.26. When can these maps/plans be provided?

See SSN amendment #3, making 1 arc map available for distribution upon request. ARC maps are routinely evaluated and adjusted as needed. Specific to the tentative site, G yard (west of yard E) is in the process of a demil plan and yard E hazard class is currently under review/adjustment. The USG will entertain recommendations to overall ARC map adjustments as part of your design solution as long as it is in the best interest to the USG and the mission at IAAAP. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

For the proposed site is there an environmental assessment that has been completed? Are there any endangered species on the proposed site that may require additional efforts or may force construction on the site to be paused during certain periods?

Yes, the tentative site has been approved from the NEPA compliance perspective. The 2 documents that cover the approvals: Available upon request

• “Supplement Environmental Assessment for the Future Artillery Complex, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA” dated April 2023. Prepared by bhate.

• EA for Implementation of Master Planning Actions at IAAAP, dated June 2020. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District Contract No.: W91278-16-D-0021; Task Order No.: W9127819F0276. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Can we have historical flood data for this site to adequately size drainage? Please refer to page 32-33 (3-14 & 3-15) and 45 (4-1) of the "Final Supplemental EA" dated April

2023. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Has a geotechnical survey been performed for the proposed site, and can you provide any data on soil or subsurface conditions that may impact construction?

Yes, see amendment #3 to SSN. Geotech reports available upon request. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

What number of production shifts, and how many operating days per week, should offerors assume to meet the required production capacity (i.e., operating contractor will LAP two 8-hour shifts per day, 5 days a week, etc.)?

The USG is not prescibing how a solution gets us to 36K rounds per month. We are asking the industry partner to provide the most efficient solution that adheres to TDP's and specs listed in the

SSN.

Explosive facilities operating to DoD 4145.26-M require shutdown for lightning. Historically, how many hours of production per year are lost due to lightning?

Technically all explosive production facilities have lightning protection in accordance with NFPA 780 and DoD 6055.09E as such there are no formal shutdowns due to lightning.

How many days of production are lost on average per year due to storms/snowstorms in Burlington, IA?

~75 hours per year

Explosive waste will be generated by melt-pour operations. What capacity does the IAAAP facility have for additional waste disposal? Explosive contaminated waste such as boxes, gloves etc. will also be generated, will this be taken to existing facilities or does a disposal plant need to be considered?

All production waste is managed by the operating contractor. IAAAP has a process and centralized facilities in place to manage waste.

Will traffic for operations unrelated to the melt-pour facility need to transit through the road on the site?

Road and rail traffic will be coordinated with the operating contractor. At this time the USG does not anticipate work in progress west of yard E to interfere with overall operations at IAAAP. We do not expect traffic to interfere with the proposed site work.

Will access to the site be unrestricted during the construction phase? The design/build firm will be responsible for securing the site during construction. The new LAP line will require its own perimiter fence and access control point.

Will there be a requirement for fencing, security gates and access control for the site? Should parking for personal vehicles be included in our proposal for this site or will workers be bussed in?

Yes, the new LAP line will require perimeter fencing and access control. Employee parking will be outside of new fencing/access control to the line.

To ensure production quality, it is necessary to section the filled projectiles and test fill quality/adhesion. Is there a remote cutting (sawing) capability at IAAAP that could be used or is this capability expected to be included?

The requirement for quality control/assurance should be included in any design solution in acccordance with all TDP's. Notch drop and facing must be part of your design solution.

IAAAP has a fire service crew. How far is the fire station from the site? What is the expected response time?

3.7 miles from Site 2 (proposed site west o fyard E). Per the Fire Protection PWS 100% of responses to fires and other emergency responses shall exit the station within 2 minutes of receipt of alarm/report of fire, smoke, rescue, or similar situation and the same for receipt of request for medical assistance.

Are C,D & K yard are available for storage of explosive and warhead storage. What is the expected spare capacity of these bunkers both for incoming raw materials and finished goods?

There is limited to no storage space avilable elsewhere on the installation. Required storage space in support of given design solution should be included as part of the overall plan.

The Government recently provided interested offerors with local union POCs as additional resources.

Are there any formal requirements to utilize local unions for the performance of a resultant award or are these contacts being provided as an informal resource to obtain information in support of a proposal?

The USG is not directing union participation as part of the SSN however all future contracts will adhere to FAR/DFAR laws and regulations.

Do the priorities in the Army Ammunition Plant Modernization Plan inform the government's evaluation of the proposed solution?

Yes

The SSN mentions automation experience in an explosive environment which aligns with "Isolate from energetic mass". Is automation a high priority for this new facility?

The USG is not prescriptive in defining solutions that are in the best value to the government.

Automate as appropriate, the USG is looking for efficiency with the ability to continually produce artillery rounds without any prolonged stoppages. USG is not looking for state of the art, looking for state of the practical; meaning all “new” technology should be proven out prior to implementation. A production line isn’t a research and development vehicle.The USG team will consider additional efficiencies and information that can advance production and maximize best value to the government while providing for an efficient operation meeting TDP requirements. The USG is concerned about cost per round.

Are other priorities like improving flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability to be considered in this effort?

The USG is interested in an efficient solution that maximizes value to the USG while adhering to TDP’s. We expect there to be tradeoffs and any tradeoffs recommended by the offeror should be detailed enough to sufficiently allow the USG team to complete a proper evaluation.

Is this Sources Sought only for the construction of the facility and the LAP line? Yes, the sources sought is only looking for industry partners that can design build commission and transition the facility.

When the document states The facility will be operated by the GOCO Contractor does that mean AO is already guaranteed to run the new facility or will the prime for this effort be considered as a GOCO Awardee for this facility?

The sources sought is seeking industry partners that can design build commission and transition the new LAP facility to the IAAAP operator whether it is the current contractor or other. It is too early to determine that entity.

Is the intent to obligate all funding for the contract up front? Funding will be provided in accordance with UCA DFAR 217.74 regulations: subject to change depending on waiver approvals if in the best interest of the USG and the overall effort of expediting a new LAP line at IAAAP.

Obligation: Is all the money in hand/what is the downside of obligating all the money to the contractor?

Funding will be provided in accordance with UCA DFAR 217.74 regulations: subject to change depending on waiver approvals if in the best interest of the USG and the overall effort of expediting a new LAP line at IAAAP.

Is there a target budget/construction price limit? There is an appropriation for this project with no expected future appropriations planned or expected.

The USG team will be considering tradeoffs that maximize best value to the USG and that are in the best interest of IAAAP as a whole.

This project is seen as a huge capital investment, is there an opportunity to get additional funds down the line for expansion or growing capability?

There is no planned or expected additional funds for this project. The USG will take into consideration those solutions that maximize best value to the government in accordance with the sources sought ammunition matrix while focusing on 36000/month of M795 TNT. The USG is interested in better understanding cost and schedule impacts to change over to something other than M795 TNT and/or capacity expansion.

Can the USG share what the budget is? The USG is not going to provide total budget, but cost is a key point when determining tradeoffs as the USG evaluates best value to the government across the IAAAP. There is data out there that is provided publicly to help industry gauge.

What is the FUND status/availability? What is the Budget for this project? The response should be designed to technical specs as articulated in the SSN. There is an appropriation for this project with no expected future appropriations planned or expected. The USG team will be considering tradeoffs that maximize best value to the USG and what is in the best interest to IAAAP as a whole.

Does the reviewing authority stay the same for this design cycle that it's been in the past? Yes, ACC RI will be the “official” reviewing authority on all aspects of this project while collaborating with PL JS and JMC. Other USG entities will be brought in as needed depending on the nature of review requirements. As of today, the Core of Engineers has not been asked to support this project but may be approached in the future. Entities such as DDESB, USATECS, and JMC Safety will be key players through out.

77 Will Mike Hagn, IAAAP Project Lead have the same involvement/continued capacity? Yes, Mike is the IAAAP lead, and he is the official fire AO BHA.

Why is the USG going out to industry for this project? The USG requests industry partners to provide best solutions in maximizing value to the USG in rebuilding its organic defense industrial base. Past efforts have been unexecutable/unaffordable and out of scope of current or emerging requirements.

Industry knows some work has been done, what planning and design has been done? Previous design efforts were unaffordable and un-executable to the USG. All prep work previously completed that is not inclusive of previous designs solutions can be made available upon request.

Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

How far do we need to get on design, what percentage is needed to get the concept across? The design or concept submitted must be mature enough to allow the USG team to thoroughly understand cost and schedule risk involved in completing the design and construction post award.

Any design charette requirements that has gone through with the previous contractor that can be provided?

Previous design solutions are considered unaffordable and out of scope for this effort and emerging or new requirements.

Do the bids need to address any perceived operational conflicts if both lines are running simultaneously?

Yes, responses and associated solutions should not interfere with existing operations and/or production lines at IAAAP.

As far as experience and demonstrating capabilities, does experience outside of munition projects qualify and does industrial experience qualify as demonstrating capabilities?

The company will be looked at holistically. Large scale industrial construction is applicable, if munitions were also worked on it would further enhance your proposal. The USG is aware and encourages companies will partner with one or more others.

Will slides be sent out? Slides from Industry Day will be sent out.Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Is there any certainty from the USG a project manager will be assigned to this project? Yes, PL JS is the PM shop for this effort in collaboration with ACC RI, DEVCOM AC, and JMC.

86 Is Day and Zimmerman a competitor with this opportunity? The sources sought is open to all Industry Partners with cage codes.

Who is the program manager for the army and what's their authority to make decisions? PL JS is the project manager for this effort and at this time will lead all decision making in collaboration with ACC RI and JMC and DEVCOM AC. As the KO, ACC RI retains contract oversight and authority.

What documentation if any is the USG able to release? See recent sources sought notice (amendment #3) allowing for the release of documents upon request. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Is AO/ D&Z one of the competitors on this opportunity? And what is the USG's position on utilizing M&H considering their multi-year institutional knowledge of this project and site (although a Stop Work was issued April 2024)?

The requirements as described in the SSN (W519TC-25-R-0032) are considered a new effort by the USG. The SSN is open to all potential offerors registered in SAM.gov with cage codes. All previous efforts were determined to be unaffordable or un-executable. All documents and prep work associated with previous designs that are not design solutions in nature will be provided to potential offerors as part of this new requirement.Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Who will be the project Owner's Representative/ Project Manager for the Government? What kind of staff will that entity have? Will they be the decision maker?

PL JS is the program/project manager for this effort. ACC RI will retain contract authority. At this time PL JS and ACC RI will be the entry point for all actions. The PL JS and ACC team will incorporate other USG entities as needed. The prime is ultimately responsible for achieving contract requirements.

Does experience with complex, industrial projects qualify for "demonstrated capabilities" as referenced on Page 5, Paragraph 1 of the RFP?

Yes, experience with large complex industrial design/builds help in qualifying a response. Experience with munitions (LAP) manufacturing or partnering with an entity that has that experience improves a potential offerors response.

We would like to understand prior endeavor & work completed that USG has already paid for. Previous design solutions were determined unaffordable and un-executable and subsequently canceled. This is a new requirement developed with a sense of urgency to address 1242/1244 authorities. Documents involved in previous efforts minus design solutions will be made available, see SSN amendment #3. Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

Since AO and Mason and Hanger have a good understanding with documents and efforts. Can the USG make them available?

Documents unrelated to design solutions will be shared to the max extent possible. Previous design solutions failed due to unaffordability and out of scope not supported by emerging requirements.

Can companies have Geotech on the 240-acre site? YES, Geotech has been done on the 240-acre site west of yard E. See available documents available upon request (amendment #3). Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided.

When the document states that the facility will be operated by the GOCO Contractor does that mean AO is already guaranteed to run the new facility or will the prime for this effort be considered as a GOCO Awardee for this facility?

The sources sought is seeking industry partners that can design build commission and transition the new LAP facility to the IAAAP operator whether it is the current contractor or other. It is too early to determine that entity.

Is this Sources Sought only for the construction of the facility and the LAP line? Yes, the sources sought is only looking for industry partners that can design build commission and transition the facility.

How will delays in schedule be addressed? Prior to definitizaton the USG team will work with offeror to develop a realistic schedule that includes independent USG design reviews. USG does not intend to penalize the offeror for USG caused delays.

Is there an external milestone for delivery for the facility? The USG expects to have tradeoffs. While although urgency around this effort exists as it pertains to 1242/1244 authorities, the USG does not have a particular schedule in mind and will take tradeoffs into consideration when reviewing the response to maximize best value.

When would the USG like to have the capability online? The USG is not prescribing a schedule, tradeoffs will be considered to maximize best value to the government and to the IAAAP in support of 1242/1244 authorities.

Post award, does the USG have a target execution schedule in mind that can be provided? The USG is looking for industry to provide a schedule.

Anticipated timeline scheduled for Period of Performance? There will be tradeoffs the USG will make when completing tech evals, a schedule will not be dictated, and the USG wants industry to come back with a solution that maximizes best value to the

USG.

With flow and timing of commitments, what's the timeframe for the USG to comeback and make an award?

The projected award date is 15 August 2025. Please refer to the FY25 timeline presented at industry day and in associated slides.

What type of contract will be used on this project? Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA), Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with a Not To Exceed (NTE) https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-217.74-undefinitized-contract-actions

Is the Not To Exceed (NTE) true or are adjustments able to be made throughout the contract? NTE will be the approach the USG takes. The USG may consider valid Economic Price Adjustment (

EPA) requests outside of offerors control. See FAR16.203-1 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/16.203-1

Target timeframe to definitize? Submission of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4 and 15.408 Table 15-2. Proposal then goes through a cost analysis and the government develops its negotiation position. Once the final price is negotiated, ACC begins the process of definitizing the award. Definitization to occur 180 days after receipt of qualified proposal or the date on which the amount of funds obligated under the contract action is equal to more than 50% of the not to exceed.

If a company exclusively goes into multiple bids, is there a negative impact? The USG interprets this question to be asking: “Will the Government allow a contractor to act as a subcontractor within multiple responses or as a subcontractor in one response and a prime in another etc.” In the interest of promoting competition, it is the USG's intent to allow multiple bids from companies.

Can the USG provide an idea of labor costs on the operator side and some kind of dollar value metric for safety?

Current labor rates are propietary. Prevailing wage rates for southeast Iowa can be found at the DOL website. https://apps.labor.ny.gov/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do?method=showIt

Will you share what specific data cost details and any proposals that are required for definitization? Submission of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4 and 15.408 Table 15-2.

109 Has the prime ever been Joint Venture? The USG would consider a Joint Venture.

If we submit with a partner as a prime, is that something that needs to be registered fully through SAM.gov?

All offerors will need to be registered, and the prime would be the one registering with their assigned CAGE code.

Once contract is awarded what are the approval steps and stakeholders’ involvement in definitizing the contract?

Submission of a qualified cost proposal IAW FAR 15.403-4 and 15.408 Table 15-2. Proposal then goes through a cost analysis and the government develops its negotiation position. Once the final price is negotiated, ACC begins the process of definitizing the award. Definitization to occur 180 days after receipt of qualified proposal or the date on which the amount of funds obligated under the contract action is equal to more than 50% of the not to exceed.

In the event we intend to submit with a JV Partner, should the new entity (JV entity) be registered on SAM prior to submitting the proposal?

A new cage code will likely be required to register as a JV prior to award. The recommendation is to have 1 entity register and respond to the SSN with their already assigned cage code then in parallel work to gain a new cage for the JV. The response can be submitted under the cage previously submitted then upon a potential award be moved to the JV cage code.

Does the USG have a definition of commissioning that's been established? At a minimum Commissioning is inclusive of the following actions (1) ensuring building/facility is operational per design, (2) all equipment (inclusive of processing equipment) functions at set parameters for minimum of half shift, (3) processing equipment achieves goal of producing TDP compliant 155mm M795 TNT loaded projectile, (4) validation of X-ray imaging technique to achieve requirements, (5) post cycle oven qualification / thermal mapping, (6) 1000 round loading qualification, (7) First Article Testing (including all quality documentation required) with the exception of Ballistic First Article piece. The USG would also like to understand an offerors approach to commissioning, not included above, but also how the operating contractor will be incorporated into the commissioning and transition of the facility.

On the contract itself and the scope and expectations, what are the critical performance objectives and key deliverables?

A facility complex design that achieves the requirements of the 155mm M795 TDP inclusive of the actions from previous questions on commissioning plus (1) valid and realistic schedule, (2) cost and pricing.

Risk and Warranties once the facility is transitioned? Who owns this? This will be finalized prior to definitization and agreed upon by both design/build firm and the operating contractor. USG is looking for best industry practices on risk ownership as it pertains to production, equipment, and facility performance prior to and after the transition.

How much automation? The USG is not prescriptive in defining solutions. USG is looking for the best value to the tax payer.

Automate as appropriate, the USG is looking for efficiency with the ability to continually produce artillery rounds without any stoppages. USG is not looking for state of the art, looking for state of the practical; meaning all “new” technology should be proven out prior to implementation. A production line isn’t a research and development vehicle.

If a more highly automated situation is proposed, is the USG looking for unit cost per round? The USG would like to keep the baseline cost where it is today. Cost per round is publicly available.

The USG team will consider additional efficiencies and information that can advance production and maximize best value to the government while providing for an efficient operation meeting TDP requirements. Not looking for state of the art, looking for state of the practical.

Is the USG open to options with tradeoffs? Yes, tradeoffs that maximize best value and improve the overall operations at IAAAP are important to the USG.

Is the USG asking industry to pick the best site for the project? During windshield tours 2 sites were discussed. The first site near line 2 is no longer a viable option.

Responses should focus on “site 2” that was discussed during the windshield tour. The USG is interested in an efficient operational layout that best utilizes the space available in site 2 (240 acre site west of yard E/east of yard G as articulated in the SSN).

Will industry gain access to maps or additional information around the other possible site areas? Information to include existing ARC map, NPDES, GeoTech reports, and other associated permits will be made available upon request (see amendment #3 to the SSN).Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided

To what degree will the USG/Army wish to tailor the successful bidders design? There will be feedback from the USG and changes will likely need to be made and negotiated.

Is there a baseline cost per round that is targeted? Cost per round is proprietary, the USG recommends industry to look at data open to the public to get a baseline. The USG is trying to keep cost down but is interested in proposals that would make LAP operations more efficient while keeping cost per round competitive.

123 Does the USG only plan on running one product at a time? Yes

Are there absolute must haves for the project that industry may not be aware of? Cost, how can the USG make this affordable. Make sure it's executable. Focus on state of the reality.

Must produce a round that meets the TDP at the desired annual rates. The USG is trying to keep cost down but is interested in proposals that would make LAP operations more efficient while keeping cost per round competitive. Make sure it's executable. Focus on state of the reality.

Are there discharge limits for IMX for the new facility? IAAAP does have discharge limits for IMX and IMX components. Please see NPDES permits referenced below: NPDES permits are available upon request (see SSN amendment #3)

STATE OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM

AMENDMENT TO NPDES PERMIT

Iowa NPDES Permit #: 2900900 Date of Issuance: February 1, 2020 Date of Expiration: January 31, 2025 Date of this Amendment: January 1, 2023 EPA Number: IA0022144 Certain documents with dissemination control statements will require registration with the Joint Certification Program before being provided

For design reviews, is up to the contractor to recommend when to do design reviews? The USG is looking for industry's approach as it pertains to this specific request. Best practices but the USG will implement a scheduled review process prior to breaking ground.

Does the USG have a master plan that the site has been maneuvered around on? The proposed site (site #2 west of yard E) and the siting of a new LAP line is integrated into all site planning considerations for IAAAP.

Are there other armaments that the USG would want to be produced besides the M795? The specs are listed in the sources sought. The USG is not going back to carbon steel processing equipment due to the corrosive nature of energetics. Baseline is 795 TNT but would like to understand risk to cost and schedule to LAP other rounds listed in the SSN to include mortars.

Is 36K rounds per month exclusively 155 or is the USG looking for industry to offer additional rounds? The USG is looking for 36K rounds 795 TNT as a baseline, but there is a matrix in the sources sought that can help inform potential for LAP of other rounds. The USG is not interested in going back to carbon steel equipment processing equipment due to the corrosive nature of energetics, it should be stainless steel. The uSG would like to better understand risk to cost and schedule in order to LAP rounds other than 795 and family of 155.

Is the USG looking for anything unique that is outside of the current market? USG is looking for industry to propose a process that will be able to produce 155mm M795 artillery rounds compliant with the TDP. USG is not looking for state of the art, looking for state of the practical; meaning all “new” technology should be proven out prior to implementation.